We began scrutinizing New Testament texts that
"kingdom now" theologians employ in an attempt to argue that the
kingdom is a present reality in order to show that none of these passages teach
a present form of the kingdom. We have examined the typical texts from the
Gospels, Acts, Paul's letters, the general epistles, and Revelation that are
typically used by "kingdom now" theologians. At this point, we
largely find ourselves in agreement with the following statement by E.R.
Craven. Concerning a present, spiritual establishment of the kingdom, Craven
notes, "There is no critically undisputed passage in the Scriptures which
declares, or necessarily implies, even a partial establishment in New
Testament times."[1] We then
began to take a look at some other miscellaneous arguments used by
"kingdom now" theologians.

ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE

Since the biblical text itself fails to positively teach
or convey the notion of a present spiritual establishment of the Messianic
kingdom of God upon the earth, it is common for "kingdom now"
theologians to appeal to an argument from silence. According to this line of
thought, since the New Testament fails to mention or emphasize a future earthly
kingdom, then the promise of a future terrestrial rule of Christ has somehow
been cancelled. Since this promise of a future earthly reign of Christ is
cancelled, due to this alleged silence, the Bible's kingdom promises are being
fulfilled now in the present Church Age. In the last installment we observed
that such thinking represents a logical fallacy known as an "argument from
silence" where it is incorrectly assumed that silence on a matter is the
same thing as a cancellation of it.

THE NEW TESTAMENT'S REAFFIRMATION OF THE LAND PROMISES

Furthermore, beyond using faulty logic, the "kingdom
now" theologian is wrong in assuming that the New Testament is completely
silent on the subject of the restoration of Israel's terrestrial kingdom
promises. While not emphasizing this truth to the same degree as is found in
the pages of the Old Testament, the New Testament still affirms this truth in
several places. For example, Luke 21:24 says, "...Jerusalem will be
trampled underfoot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are
fulfilled" (italics added). The mere existence of the preposition
"until" (achri) implies a time when Gentile dominion over
Jerusalem will come to an end and Israel will be restored to her rightful place
of rulership over the nations. Matthew 23:38-39 similarly says,
"Behold, your house is being left to you desolate! For I say to
you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’" Here,
Christ speaks to the unbelieving first-century Jewish leadership. As in Luke
21:24, the conjunction "until" (heōs) again implies a
time when the nation will pray Psalm 118:26 and consequently see Christ again
leaving their house no longer in desolation (Matt. 24:31; 25:31). Christ's
promise in Matthew 19:28 also reaffirms the future land promises: "Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the
regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also
shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." This
verse teaches that the resurrected apostles will reign over Israel's twelve
tribes. Just as each tribe was allotted land in Old Testament times (Josh. 13‒21),
tribal land allocation will also be the reality in the future kingdom age
(Ezek. 47‒48).

Surely Paul speaks of the future kingdom
promises through Israel in Romans 11:25-27:

...that a partial hardening has happened to
Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, “The Deliverer will come
from Zion,He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.”“This isMy covenant with them,When
I take away their sins.”

Notice Paul's express assertion that Israel's
hardening is only partial, as well as his affirmation of Israel's future
deliverance and forgiveness. Paul also discloses God's intention to keep His
covenantal obligations to Israel. The Davidic Covenant seems to be in
view in 11:26b by mention of the Messianic deliverer (Isa. 59:20). Similarly,
the Abrahamic Covenant appears in Romans 11:27a with its allusion to Isaiah
59:21 and Genesis 17:4. The New Covenant seems to be referred to in Romans
11:27b when it cites Jeremiah 31:31. Thus, these verses
furnish a clear reaffirmation of the Old Testament kingdom promises.

New Testament reaffirmation of the land
promises is also implied in the Apocalypse. In Revelation 7:4-8, we learn of
how God will use 144,000 Jews to evangelize the world during the Tribulation
(Rev. 7:9-17). Here, we are specifically told that 12,000 Jewish evangelists
will come from each of these twelve tribes. In Revelation 14:4, these Jewish
evangelists are called the "first fruits." In Israel's harvest cycle,
the first fruits of the harvest guaranteed that the general harvest would also
come in. In the same way, the conversion of these 144,000 Jews guarantees that
the rest of the Jewish remnant will also be converted (Zech. 12:10; 13:8-9).

Moreover, Revelation 20:7-10 speaks of a
final, failed satanic rebellion at the end of the Millennial kingdom as
described in Revelation 20:9: "And they came up on the broad plain of the
earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came
down from heaven and devoured them." Notice that this satanic attack is
aimed at the "beloved city." Although not identified by name, this designation is a clear reference to the city of Jerusalem
since the descriptor “beloved” city or an equivalent statement is used
repeatedly in the Psalms to depict Jerusalem (Ps. 78:68; 87:2).[2]
Even Simcox and Ladd, while simultaneously arguing against a literal
fulfillment of the temple and sacrifices mentioned in Ezekiel 40–48, indicate
that Jerusalem is clearly in view in Revelation 20:9.[3] The reason that Satan attacks Jerusalem in this final battle is
because God, during the Millennial kingdom, will fulfill His promise of making
Israel and Jerusalem head over the nations (Deut. 28:13; Isa. 2:2-3; Zech.
14:16-18). Because Israel in general and Jerusalem in particular will be the
headquarters or the nerve center of the Millennial kingdom, this special city
will become the object of Satan's wrath during this final battle. Robert Thomas
explains, "At the end of the Millennium that city will be Satan’s
prime objective with his rebel army, because Israel will be a leader among the
nations."[4] Finally,
it is interesting to note that the gates in the eternal city or the New
Jerusalem will be named after the twelve tribes of Israel (Rev. 21:12). Such
naming seems to once again reaffirm God's intention to fulfill all that He has
purposed to do through His covenanted nation Israel.

In sum, while it is true that that the New Testament is
not as clear as the Old Testament on the subject of God's future kingdom promises
through Israel, the "kingdom now" theologian errs in asserting that
the New Testament is completely silent on this matter. As has been
demonstrated, the New Testament reaffirms God's Old Testament kingdom promises
at several junctures. However, even if the New Testament remained silent on
this matter, that fact in and of itself would be insufficient to establish
"kingdom now" theology. Mere silence of the New Testament should not
be equated with an overt cancellation.

FOCUS UPON THE ETERNAL STATE

Other "kingdom now" theologians note how the New
Testament writers seem to focus the believers' hope on the New Jerusalem and
the Eternal State rather than Christ's earthly kingdom (Gal. 4:26; Heb. 11:10,
16; 12:22; 2 Pet. 3:13). According to this argument, such a focus conveys a
cancellation of the earthly kingdom promises. According to the Knox Seminary
Open Letter to Evangelicals:

Simon Peter spoke of the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus in
conjunction with the final judgment and the punishment of sinners.
Instructively, this same Simon Peter, the Apostle to the Circumcision, says
nothing about the restoration of the kingdom to Israel in the land of
Palestine. Instead, as his readers contemplate the promise of Jesus' Second
Coming, he fixes their hope upon the new heavens and the new earth, in which
righteousness dwells.[5]

However, this view again represents an argument from
silence since nowhere in these Eternal State passages do we find an overt
cancelation of the Old Testament kingdom and land promises. Moreover, the New
Testament's emphasis on the Eternal State may even represent a tacit
reaffirmation of the land promises since they will chronologically precede the
establishment of the Eternal state (Rev. 20:1-10; 21‒22). Mark Hitchcock
explains:

Christ will rule over His kingdom on this present earth for
one thousand years, and He will reign forever. The future kingdom of God
has two parts or phases. Phase one is the millennial reign of Christ on this
earth (Revelation 20:1-6), and phase two is the eternal state (Rev. 22:5). As I
once heard it described, the Millennium is the front porch of eternity.[6]

Through its focus on the Eternal State, the totality of
New Testament revelation indicates that the Eternal State will one day become a
reality only after its is preceded by the fulfillment of the earthly kingdom
promises. Thus, the New Testament's focus on the Eternal State merely
communicates the end of the matter without neglecting the beginning of the
kingdom or the one-thousand year earthly reign of Christ, which chronologically
precedes God's eternal rule. In other words, New Testament certainty of the
Eternal State simultaneously communicates certainty of the preceding earthly
kingdom.

(To Be Continued...)

[1] E.R.
Craven, "Excursus on the Basileia," in Revelation of John (New
York: Scribner, 1874), 95.

[3] W.H.
Simcox, The Revelation of S. John the Divine with Notes and Introductions
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1893), 185; George
Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1972), 270.